James: "The Effectual, Fervent Prayer of the Righteous Man..."

[Oncedeceived]

OK, you asked if there was evil in the world. There is plenty in the world that is not good, plenty that is not right, but there is also plenty in the world that is good and is right. That's not to say that we shouldn't try to tip the balance strongly in favour of what is good and what is right.

Ok, so you don't call bad evil then? I think Christianity makes the most sense as far as being strongly in favor of what is good. Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor as you would yourself all testify to a loving of good over evil foundation.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Ok, so you don't call bad evil then? I think Christianity makes the most sense as far as being strongly in favor of what is good. Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor as you would yourself all testify to a loving of good over evil foundation.

Do you really believe that Christianity is the only religion or philosophy that espoused these values?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you really believe that Christianity is the only religion or philosophy that espoused these values?

No, actually it was already pasted down from Abraham in the early Dynastic Period in Mesopotamia.

 

[Par5]

Ok, so you don't call bad evil then? I think Christianity makes the most sense as far as being strongly in favor of what is good. Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor as you would yourself all testify to a loving of good over evil foundation.

I never said I don't call bad, evil. There are bad things that I would consider to be evil. For example, a bad thing I would consider to be evil, very evil even, would be the slaughter of the Canaanite children, which leads me back to the question I originally asked you. Do you consider the slaughter was justified? Do you consider it evil to murder defenceless children? T consider it evil in the extreme, how about you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you really believe that Christianity is the only religion or philosophy that espoused these values?

Of course Christianity isn't the only religion or philosophy to espouse some various common values (although not necessarily identical values or sets of values). And why wouldn't Christians expect this to be the case since the Bible does teach that we're all made in the Image of God, meaning that we all have (or should have) creative, rational capacities that tend toward the good, the moral and the useful?

What Christians will question, or should question if they don't, is why don't we find those common moral values inherently manifested in the values set and ethical system of the Canaanites of the Old Testament?

The answer to this implies that where and when we DON'T find these common (and proper) moral values of human decency and respect, whether among the Canaanites of old, or even among other people groups of today, there's likely to be something drastically, morally wrong with them and with their culture ... something that needs to be checked by other, more morally responsible people and/or nations.

In the case of the Canaanites, their culture, or what was really "left of it," must have really gone South for God to have condemned it the way He did.

 

[Chriliman]

I never said I don't call bad, evil. There are bad things that I would consider to be evil. For example, a bad thing I would consider to be evil, very evil even, would be the slaughter of the Canaanite children, which leads me back to the question I originally asked you. Do you consider the slaughter was justified? Do you consider it evil to murder defenceless children? T consider it evil in the extreme, how about you?

I certainly agree, slaughtering woman and children is evil. Stories like this in the Bible perplex me greatly. It's as if the grace and mercy of God isn't yet fully realized in some of these OT stories, which kinda makes sense, given that Jesus is the full and complete revelation of God, i.e. self-giving love for the good of others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I certainly agree, slaughtering woman and children is evil. Stories like this in the Bible perplex me greatly. It's as if the grace and mercy of God isn't yet fully realized in some of these OT stories, which kinda makes sense, given that Jesus is the full and complete revelation of God, i.e. self-giving love for the good of others.

...many of us Christians believe that the Angel of God was the pre-incarnate manifestation of the Logos of God (i.e. Jesus Christ). So, if anything, it was Jesus who took-over from Moses at the time of Joshua and led the Israelites into the promise land, ousting out and casting down the Canaanites. So, in a way, it was Jesus who did it. We do have to think about that. It's not evil that the Canaanites were removed from the land.

No, the reason we think it's "evil" is that the political and moral sensibilities of today's world are "missing something," and that's why many in the West are just dumbfounded when they attempt to read and tackle the Old Testament texts of the Conquest.

 

[Chriliman]

...many of us Christians believe that the Angel of God was the pre-incarnate manifestation of the Logos of God (i.e. Jesus Christ). So, if anything, it was Jesus who took-over from Moses at the time of Joshua and led the Israelites into the promise land, ousting out and casting down the Canaanites. So, in a way, it was Jesus who did it. We do have to think about that. It's not evil that the Canaanites were removed from the land.

No, the reason we think it's "evil" is that the political and moral sensibilities of today's world are "missing something," and that's why many in the West are just dumbfounded when they attempt to read and tackle the Old Testament texts of the Conquest.

Yea, I can see that way of looking at it too. God was acting in the only good way possible at the time, any other action(like not wiping out the Canaanites) may have resulted in more, even worse evil.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Yea, I can see that way of looking at it too. God was acting in the only good way possible at the time, any other action(like not wiping out the Canaanites) may have resulted in more, even worse evil.

Seriously? An omnipotent being could simply change the Canaanites minds. How would instantly converting them to Jews, say, be an even worse evil.

An omniscient being could know a better way; an omnipotent one could carry it out; a omnibenevolent one would want to.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never said I don't call bad, evil. There are bad things that I would consider to be evil. For example, a bad thing I would consider to be evil, very evil even, would be the slaughter of the Canaanite children, which leads me back to the question I originally asked you. Do you consider the slaughter was justified? Do you consider it evil to murder defenceless children? T consider it evil in the extreme, how about you?

Is it murder if it is in self defense? The OT tells us that these people were terrible terrible people. They sacrificed their own children by burning them to appease their pagan god. They practiced bestiality and incest. The children were abused and we can assume that STD diseases were probably so bad that even their animals had them. It isn't like they had great medical care to take care of it and if they had taken in the children and animals they would have risked their own children's welfare. They generation after generation killed the Jews, young and old, babies, children and the elderly. So while any death of children is abhorrent, in this context it was necessary.

I have to ask though, do you cry out in outrage against millions of babies being ripped from the womb of women today?

God has the authority of life and death and He has the ability to see what affect the Canaanites would have on the future of the Jews and of other people of the time and only complete extermination would eliminate the evil they practiced. Do we like it, no. Did He? Probably not but when a group of people practice the evil they did there was justification for their demise when they won't turn from evil and grow more evil with each generation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Seriously? An omnipotent being could simply change the Canaanites minds. How would instantly converting them to Jews, say, be an even worse evil.

An omniscient being could know a better way; an omnipotent one could carry it out; a omnibenevolent one would want to.

I thought you were once a Christian? God doesn't take away our free wills.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I thought you were once a Christian? God doesn't take away our free wills

Yea, I can see that way of looking at it too. God was acting in the only good way possible at the time, any other action(like not wiping out the Canaanites) may have resulted in more, even worse evil.

Did you see what Chriliman said? He said an omniscient omnipotent god could not think of a better way to handle the situation than to direct a 3rd party in to kill everyone--man, woman, child, fetus, and livestock--or that this 'good' god didn't care to.

He could have transported the Canaanites to a livable planet in another galaxy and then discussed one-on-one the error of their ways. No other way? Only if one lacks imagination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Seriously? An omnipotent being could simply change the Canaanites minds. How would instantly converting them to Jews, say, be an even worse evil.

An omniscient being could know a better way; an omnipotent one could carry it out; a omnibenevolent one would want to.

Tinker, I hate to say this, but to simply say an omniscient being could know a better way isn't for you to actually affirm that a "better way" ever was a real possibility. It would be one thing if you could know that there is indeed a better way and then to cite God for having failed to choose that better way, but it's quite another thing to simply say that another way is even hypothetically possible and that you think the logic tells us that "God failed." The fact is, none of us really knows that it was (or is) the case, and for people to keep pushing the envelope of hypotheticals is ... [ how do I say this?] ... rather disingenuous and not quite rational, really.

No, it's just a matter of playing with words that we don't know actually obtain in any referential manner, and then we slam the concepts together in hypothetical manner, all the while "thinking" we've done....logic.

But, we haven't actually said anything, really, by saying that "God could have done it better." No, it's just a complaint for something which we don't know how to deal with, kind of like how a small child knocks the ice cream off the top of his ice cream cone and then complaining that they {the manufacturers of the cone} shouldn't have made the cone "that way."

 

[Tinker Grey]

Tinker, I hate to say this, but to simply say an omniscient being could know a better way isn't for you to actually affirm that a "better way" actually ever was a possibility.

Nor can you affirm that "there is no better way."

And hypothetically possible? What is not possible for an omnipotent god? I'll even stipulate, if you want, that omnipotence doesn't entail the ability to do the logically impossible.

No, it's just a matter of playing with words that we don't know actually obtain in any referential manner and then we slam the concepts together in hypothetical manner, all the while "thinking" we've done....logic. But, we haven't actually said anything, really, by saying that "God could have done it better." No, it's just a complaint for something we don't know, kind of like how a small child knocking the ice cream off of his ice cream cone and then complaining that they {the manufacturers of the cone} shouldn't have made the cone "that way."

If you're just going to dismiss the debate as moot, then you don't have to participate.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Nor can you affirm that "there is no better way."

And hypothetically possible? What is not possible for an omnipotent god? I'll even stipulate, if you want, that omnipotence doesn't entail the ability to do the logically impossible.


If you're just going to dismiss the debate as moot, then you don't have to participate.

No, I'm just saying that your point is moot, and since I know you have a good brain, you can do better. However, I don't know that God could have done better.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you see what Chriliman said? He said an omniscient omnipotent god could not think of a better way to handle the situation than to direct a 3rd party in to kill everyone--man, woman, child, fetus, and livestock--or that this 'good' god didn't care to.

He could have transported the Canaanites to a livable planet in another galaxy and then discussed one-on-one the error of their ways. No other way? Only if one lacks imagination.

What does one do with pure evil? That you don't agree with the decision doesn't mean that the one implemented is not the best one.

 

[Chriliman]

Seriously? An omnipotent being could simply change the Canaanites minds. How would instantly converting them to Jews, say, be an even worse evil.

An omniscient being could know a better way; an omnipotent one could carry it out; a omnibenevolent one would want to.

I understand where you’re coming from. There are stories in the OT that I think are clearly from the Spirit of Jesus and then there are stories like this one about the canaanites that I can’t really see His spirit in, which makes me question the origin.

 

[Tinker Grey]

What does one do with pure evil?

An omnipotent, omniscient being has options. Are infants pure evil? What could that possibly mean?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

An omnipotent, omniscient being has options. Are infants pure evil? What could that possibly mean?

Options only by necessity mean "different choices," but different does not by necessity mean "better." Yet somehow, you atheists keep insisting on pressing the "better" button, as if it's the only thing to do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Did you see what Chriliman said? He said an omniscient omnipotent god could not think of a better way to handle the situation than to direct a 3rd party in to kill everyone--man, woman, child, fetus, and livestock--or that this 'good' god didn't care to.

He could have transported the Canaanites to a livable planet in another galaxy and then discussed one-on-one the error of their ways. No other way? Only if one lacks imagination.

It can also be that human beings lack the intelligence necessary by which to coral their imaginations and come to realize that they don't know if and how the universe, and thereby their human existence, could ACTUALLY have been made better.

No, but it is sure is fun to play with omni-words and insist that we actually do have real denotative knowledge about these words we've made up..................and to then use them to describe a God we've not actually met in an empirical way (or at least most of us haven't).